Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Svifnymr]

Without digging through Section 922 of Title 18 of the USC, I can't come up with the specific phrase, but I'm sure it's there. Keep in mind that Feinstein's bill would be inserted into Section 922 in the exact place of the expired 1994 ban. The existing law around it, I'm sure, already allows for a specific exemption for permit-holders.

The ability to get a permit is generally difficult, but is usually given to film and TV studios.

Feinsteins bill: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...f-69e69f517fb4

Exceptions are page 14/15 of the pdf, basically Law Enforcement, Nuclear Security, Retired Law Enforcement, Distributor/Dealer to one of those, or "Testing" purposes for one of those.

I do recall an article years ago (during the original AWB) where some film industry types were complaining about it affecting them, same with the machine gun ban, makes it harder for them to be authentic. I can't find it after a quick search, so take that for what it's worth I guess. Some were going to Canada since their gun laws were easier in that regard.

[FusedMass]

From below is from An article. People can argue all day long about assault weapons. The fact a Profound Figure in the Republican Party. A person to this very day is to idolize actually helped the 1994 ban. That's right I said helped. He just said virtually the same thing Obama has said. Bill signed (a liberal) the ban into law. It's amazing back then Republican Or Dem both party's knew this was wrong for these Military Style Weapons are wrong.

People love to repeat the AW ban did not work. I disagree. A key statement "statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals" that right there is what we are trying to do. It's amazing some people sit from their arm chair on here and pretty much dicate like they know better then former presidents from both party's. It's absolutely amazing.

Ronald Reagan Helped Pass The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban

As the assault weapon ban vote neared, Reagan — who as president had signed 1986 legislation loosening restrictions on guns — wrote a letter with former Presidents Ford and Carter to the House of Representatives urging them to vote in favor of the ban.

“We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety,” the letter said.

“While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons,” the letter said concluding.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ron...t-weapons-ban/

[Laize]

"5 days? But I'm mad now!"

Comprehensive background checks, as well as registration for all firearms for all firearm sales, even just changing hands, should be necessary. No reason for them not to be.

Also Laize, it's good to see you sticking to your guns (no pun intended) when insisting that a .22 is a toy. And by good, I mean unfortunate that it's so darn hard for anyone on the internet to concede a point ever.

The second amendment was made in a time in history when guns were single shot barrel loaders that had less power and accuracy than a .22. A .22 makes a barrel loader look like a super soaker.

Would you consider a slingshot a toy?

[Jaxi]

People love to repeat the AW ban did not work. I disagree. A key statement "statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals" that right there is what we are trying to do. It's amazing some people sit from their arm chair on here and pretty much dicate like they know better then former presidents from both party's. It's absolutely amazing.

That's nice. Facts disagree:
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/re..._final2004.pdf
I've used this several times now, it's the University of Pennsylvania study on the '94 gun ban, and it was commissioned by the justice department.

"Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at
best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in
gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share
of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on
the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity
limit) without reloading"

Furthermore, for LCMS:
"However, the decline in AW use was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by
steady or rising use of other guns equipped with LCMs in jurisdictions studied
(Baltimore, Milwaukee, Louisville, and Anchorage). The failure to reduce LCM
use has likely been due to the immense stock of exempted pre-ban magazines,
which has been enhanced by recent imports.

The '94 ban did not work, and neither will the revamped Feinstein bill. The problem is we have 88.8 guns per 100 people in this country, that's a massive stockpile that will take generations upon generations to reduce, and only if we broaden the gun control to repeal the second amendment, and confiscate guns from citizens. The supply is simply too large to be affected by a ban that only targets 2% of the weapons used in crimes. We're talking about over 200 million guns in circulation, and you're trying to imply that a law that not only allows existing weapons to stay (around 2 million AW), but it also allows simple modifications to be made to make otherwise banned weapons perfectly legal again, will actually have a noticeable impact on that large of a stockpile?

It's not going to work, and it doesn't target the issue at large. A former president asking for broader gun control does not mean that this gun control will work, to assume that it would is asinine. I respect Ronald Reagan, indeed I think he was one of the best presidents we've ever had, but he's still just a man.

I'm absolutely astonished that the gun-control crowd still maintains that weapons used in a very small percentage of the gun related crimes are the real problem.

[smelltheglove]

Would you consider a slingshot a toy?

some are quite lethal. none are terribly long ranged, or very effective at long range

[FusedMass]

snip.

That's nice. Now you're just arguing semantics. That's a narrow view and that data is not absolute its not a universal truth. I will re-direct you to my earlier point "statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals"

[Kujako]

some are quite lethal. none are terribly long ranged, or very effective at long range

And you never see news papers with headlines "single mother killed by stray rock in drive by slingshotting".

[Jaxi]

That's nice. Now you're just arguing semantics. That's a narrow view and that data is not absolute its not a universal truth. I will re-direct you to my earlier point "statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals"

I'd love to see them, because the study on the ban disagreed.

[Svifnymr]

People love to repeat the AW ban did not work. I disagree. A key statement "statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals" that right there is what we are trying to do. It's amazing some people sit from their arm chair on here and pretty much dicate like they know better then former presidents from both party's. It's absolutely amazing.

You've already posted the same thing before, and ignored the retorts, except through your normal passive-aggressive attacks at folks.

How about these statements:
"Prior to the 1994 ban, assault weapons were used in 2-8% of crimes. Therefore a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides.
A National Academy study of firearms and violence concluded that the weaknesses of the ban and the scientific literature suggest that the assault weapon ban did not have an effect on firearm homicides."

Or:
"Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective"

---------- Post added 2013-02-25 at 06:28 PM ----------

That's nice. Now you're just arguing semantics. That's a narrow view and that data is not absolute its not a universal truth. I will re-direct you to my earlier point "statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals"

Sure, if you ban them outright and confiscate the rifles currently out there, you can dry up the supply.

It won't have any affect on gun homicides, but it will be effective in infringing on the rights of millions of private citizens.

---------- Post added 2013-02-25 at 06:30 PM ----------

And you never see news papers with headlines "single mother killed by stray rock in drive by slingshotting".

http://www.examiner.com/article/upda...ls-12-year-old

Think of the children!

[smelltheglove]

And you never see news papers with headlines "single mother killed by stray rock in drive by slingshotting".

well, you can get steel balls for shot, but yeah. you can certainly kill with a good one, but it's not exactly the weapon of choice for a mass murder spree

[FusedMass]

You've already posted the same thing before, and ignored the retorts, except through your normal passive-aggressive attacks at folks.

How about these statements:
"Prior to the 1994 ban, assault weapons were used in 2-8% of crimes. Therefore a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides.
A National Academy study of firearms and violence concluded that the weaknesses of the ban and the scientific literature suggest that the assault weapon ban did not have an effect on firearm homicides."

Or:
"Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective"

I read it. I just do not agree with it. One vague study after the ban went into place does not disprove statistics and common sense that by reducing the amount of guns in circulation aka assault weapons it seems it would be less accessible to criminals. That's statistics talking. That study is not absolute. You're just repeating statements from an incomplete report.

That's not just me saying it. That's former President Ronald Reagan agrees. Along with President Obama, Former President Bill.

[Svifnymr]

I read it. I just do not agree with it. One vague study after the ban went into place does not disprove statistics and common sense that by reducing the amount of guns in circulation aka assault weapons it seems it would be less accessible to criminals. That's statistics talking. That study is not absolute. You're just repeating statements from an incomplete report.

The letter from the National Institute of Justice, discussing such things is not absolute by any means, certainly. I'd say they're more informed than...

That's not just me saying it. That's former President Ronald Reagan agrees. Along with President Obama, Former President Bill.

...those guys. Reagan passed the act that banned machine gun manufacture in 1986, well before he started showing signs of senility, so he was no friend of "all guns". He was diagnoses with Alzheimers in 1994, the same year "he" wrote the letter supporting the ban on assault weapons.

What facts did he present? Or any of them for that matter. Did any of them say "these guns are used in X amount of crimes, they must be stopped!"?

[Jaxi]

I read it. I just do not agree with it. One vague study after the ban went into place does not disprove statistics and common sense that by reducing the amount of guns in circulation aka assault weapons it seems it would be less accessible to criminals. That's statistics talking. That study is not absolute. You're just repeating statements from an incomplete report.

That's not just me saying it. That's former President Ronald Reagan agrees. Along with President Obama, Former President Bill.

Based off of what? You fail to present ANY evidence that your assumption is true. We've refuted with facts based on studying the original ban. At this point you have an opinion without a single shred of evidence to back it up. You're not even able to argue against our argument, you just deny it as a "vague study" (although it's thorough enough for the Justice Department) and "common sense." It's an admirable - albeit mistaken - attempt to stubbornly preserve your original opinion that this ban would have an affect. It won't.

Without actual evidence to support your position, this argument is going to devolve to "Well I still think this" vs. "Well I think you're wrong."

[Moadar]

I didn't think I'd see the day when progressives target people for blocking common sense Gun Reform but there it is.

How is it common sense? I don't see anything about including government agencies in it. They need gun reform more than the public.

[Laize]

some are quite lethal. none are terribly long ranged, or very effective at long range

That wasn't the question.

The question was, "Do you consider a slingshot a toy?"

Most of society does as it's considered acceptable to make them for children.

[FusedMass]

The letter from the National Institute of Justice, discussing such things is not absolute by any means, certainly. I'd say they're more informed than...

...those guys. Reagan passed the act that banned machine gun manufacture in 1986, well before he started showing signs of senility, so he was no friend of "all guns". He was diagnoses with Alzheimers in 1994, the same year "he" wrote the letter supporting the ban on assault weapons.

What facts did he present? Or any of them for that matter. Did any of them say "these guns are used in X amount of crimes, they must be stopped!"?

You are arguing semantics instead of information provided. You're arguing what might have happened on his mentality instead of the actual words he said it seems. I'd like to re-focus back on what he said and that was statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. The back logged vague one report from one agency as we both now agree is not absolute and your comments on his mentality are not relevant.

Based off of what? You fail to present ANY evidence that your assumption is true. We've refuted with facts based on studying the original ban. At this point you have an opinion without a single shred of evidence to back it up. You're not even able to argue against our argument, you just deny it as a "vague study" (although it's thorough enough for the Justice Department) and "common sense." It's an admirable - albeit mistaken - attempt to stubbornly preserve your original opinion that this ban would have an affect. It won't.

Without actual evidence to support your position, this argument is going to devolve to "Well I still think this" vs. "Well I think you're wrong."

Even the poster above's you agree's we should not base a single study as absolute.

[Jaxi]

statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.

What statistics? I don't see them, does anyone else?

Even the poster above's you agree's we should not base a single study as absolute.

At least I have a study. You seem to want to give it try based off of nothing more than a 20 year old letter that seems to have a baseless claim.

[smelltheglove]

That wasn't the question.

The question was, "Do you consider a slingshot a toy?"

Most of society does as it's considered acceptable to make them for children.

is there a point to this? i tried to anticipate what your were asking here, and answered pretty damned accurately. if you're trying to go somewhere else with it you're going to have to come out and say it i guess

[Laize]

Even the poster above's you agree's we should not base a single study as absolute.

From what I can gather you want to ban "assault weapons" for at least 30 years just to see what will happen... based on absolutely no evidence of such legislation's effectiveness whatsoever.

I don't think you have grounds to criticize someone else's grounds for their opinion.

---------- Post added 2013-02-25 at 11:48 PM ----------

is there a point to this? i tried to anticipate what your were asking here, and answered pretty damned accurately. if you're trying to go somewhere else with it you're going to have to come out and say it i guess

The point is a slingshot can be deadly and yet is considered a toy.

Yet I'm criticized for considering a .22lr a toy.

If someone wants to pick a clear line that demarcates "toy" and "weapon" I'm all ears... but until then a .22 is a fucking toy.

[FusedMass]

What statistics? I don't see them, does anyone else?

You're arguing removing a weapon from circulation,would not make it less accessible to people..That's common sense as well as statistics it seems.

From what I can gather you want to ban "assault weapons" for at least 30 years just to see what will happen... based on absolutely no evidence of such legislation's effectiveness whatsoever.

I don't think you have grounds to criticize someone else's grounds for their opinion.

---------- Post added 2013-02-25 at 11:48 PM ----------



The point is a slingshot can be deadly and yet is considered a toy.

Yet I'm criticized for considering a .22lr a toy.

If someone wants to pick a clear line that demarcates "toy" and "weapon" I'm all ears... but until then a .22 is a fucking toy.

I'm disagreeing with them.